!

New gTLD Program
Community Priority Evaluation Report
Report Date: 11 June 2014
Application ID:
Applied-for String:
Applicant Name:

1-880-17627
LLC
Dot Registry LLC

Overall Community Priority Evaluation Summary
Community Priority Evaluation Result

Did Not Prevail

Thank you for your participation in the New gTLD Program. After careful consideration and extensive
review of the information provided in your application, including documents of support, the Community
Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the requirements specified in the
Applicant Guidebook. Your application did not prevail in Community Priority Evaluation.
Your application may still resolve string contention through the other methods as described in Module 4 of
the Applicant Guidebook.
Panel Summary
Overall Scoring

5 Point(s)Criteria#1: Community Establishment#2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community#3: Registration Policies#4: Community Endorsement
Total

Earned00325Achievable
4
4
4
4
16

Minimum Required Total Score to Pass 14

Criterion #1: Community Establishment
1-A Delineation

0/4 Point(s)0/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as identified in the application did
not meet the criterion for Delineation as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria)of the Applicant Guidebook, as the community demonstrates insufficient delineation, organization and preexistence. The application received a score of 0 out of 2 points under criterion 1-A: Delineation.
Delineation
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for delineation: there must be a clear straightforward
membership definition and there must be awareness and recognition of a community (as defined by theapplicant) among its members.

Page!1!

!
The community defined in the application (“LLC”) is:
Members of the community are defined as businesses registered as limited liability companies with
the United States or its territories. Limited Liability Companies or (LLC’s) as they are commonly
abbreviated, represent one of the most popular business entity structures in the US. LLCʹscommonly participate in acts of commerce, public services, and product creation….
An LLC is defined as a flexible form of enterprise that blends elements of partnership and corporate
structures. It is a legal form of company that provides limited liability to its owners in the vast
majority of United States jurisdictions. LLC’s are a unique entity type because they are considered ahybrid, having certain characteristics of both a corporation and a partnership or sole proprietorship.
LLC’s are closely related to corporations in the sense that they participate in similar activities andprovide limited liability to their partners. Additionally, LLC’s share a key characteristic withpartnerships through the availability of pass-through income taxation. LLC’s are a more flexible
entity type than a corporation and are often well suited for businesses owned by a single owner.
This community definition shows a clear and straightforward membership. While broad, the community isclearly defined, as membership requires formal registration as a limited liability company with the relevant US
state. In addition, limited liability companies must comply with US state law and show proof of best practicein commercial dealings to the relevant state authorities.
However, the community as defined in the application does not have awareness and recognition of acommunity among its members. This is because limited liability companies operate in vastly different sectors,
which sometimes have little or no association with one another. !Research showed that firms are typicallyorganized around specific industries, locales, and other criteria not related to the entities structure as an LLC.
Based on the Panel’s research, there is no evidence of LLCs from different sectors acting as a community as
defined by the Applicant Guidebook. There is no evidence that these limited liability companies would
associate themselves with being part of the community as defined by the applicant.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application only
satisfies one of the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for delineation.
Organization
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for organization: there must be at least one entity
mainly dedicated to the community and there must be documented evidence of community activities.
The community as defined in the application does not have at least one entity mainly dedicated to thecommunity. Although responsibility for corporate registrations and the regulations pertaining to corporate
formation are vested in each individual US state, these government agencies are fulfilling a function, rather
than representing the community. In addition, the offices of the Secretaries of State of US states are notmainly dedicated to the community as they have other roles/functions beyond processing corporate
registrations. According to the application:
LLCʹs can be formed through any jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore members of thiscommunity exist in all 50 US states and its territories. LLC formation guidelines are dictated by state
law and can vary based on each state’s regulations. Persons form an LLC by filing required
documents with the appropriate state authority, usually the Secretary of State. Most states require
the filing of Articles of Organization. These are considered public documents and are similar to
articles of incorporation, which establish a corporation as a legal entity. At minimum, the articles oforganization give a brief description of the intended business purposes, the registered agent, andregistered business address. LLC’s are expected to conduct business in conjunction with the policiesof the state in which they are formed, and the Secretary of State periodically evaluates a LLC’s levelof good standing based on their commercial interactions with both the state and consumers.

Page!2!

!
The community as defined in the application does not have documented evidence of community activities.
As there is no entity that is mainly dedicated to the community as defined in the .LLC application, there is no
documented evidence of community activities.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application does
not satisfy either of the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for organization.
Pre-existence
To fulfill the requirements for pre-existence, the community must have been active prior to September 2007
(when the new gTLD policy recommendations were completed).
The community as defined in the application was not active prior to September 2007. According to section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook the CPE process is conceived to
identify qualified community-based applications, while preventing both “false positives” (awarding undue
priority to an application that refers to a “community” construed merely to get a sought-after generic word as
a gTLD string) and “false negatives” (not awarding priority to a qualified community application). The
Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that this application refers to a “community” construed toobtain a sought-after corporate identifier as a gTLD string, as these limited liability companies would
typically not associate themselves with being part of the community as defined by the applicant. The
community therefore could not have been active prior to the above date (although its constituent parts wereactive).
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application does
not fulfill the requirements for pre-existence.!
1-B Extension

0/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as identified in the application did
not meet the criterion for Extension specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of
the Applicant Guidebook, as the application did not demonstrate considerable size or longevity for thecommunity. The application received a score of 0 out of 2 points under criterion 1-B: Extension.
Size
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for size: the community must be of considerable size
and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application is of a considerable size. The community for .LLC as defined in
the application is large in terms of number of members. According to the application:
With the number of registered LLC’s in the United States totaling over five million in 2010 (asreported by the International Association of Commercial Administrators) it is hard for the average
consumer to not conduct business with an LLC.
However, as previously stated the community as defined in the application does not have awareness andrecognition of a community among its members. This is because limited liability companies operate in vastlydifferent sectors, which sometimes have little or no association with one another. !Research showed thatfirms are typically organized around specific industries, locales, and other criteria not related to the entities
structure as an LLC. Based on the Panel’s research, there is no evidence of LLCs from different sectors
acting as a community as defined by the Applicant Guidebook. These limited liability companies would
therefore not typically associate themselves with being part of the community as defined by the applicant.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application only
satisfies one of the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for size.
Longevity

Page!3!

!
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for longevity: the community must demonstrate
longevity and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application does not demonstrate longevity. As mentioned previously,according to section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook the CPE
process is conceived to identify qualified community-based applications, while preventing both “false
positives” (awarding undue priority to an application that refers to a “community” construed merely to get asought-after generic word as a gTLD string) and “false negatives” (not awarding priority to a qualified
community application). The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that this application refers toa “community” construed to obtain a sought-after corporate identifier as a gTLD string as these limited
liability companies would typically not associate themselves with being part of the community as defined by
the applicant. Therefore, the pursuits of the .LLC community are not of a lasting, non-transient nature.
Additionally, as previously stated, the community as defined in the application does not have awareness andrecognition of a community among its members. This is because limited liability companies operate in vastlydifferent sectors, which sometimes have little or no association with one another. !Research showed thatfirms are typically organized around specific industries, locales, and other criteria not related to the entities
structure as an LLC. Based on the Panel’s research, there is no evidence of LLCs from different sectors
acting as a community as defined by the Applicant Guidebook. These limited liability companies would
therefore not typically associate themselves with being part of the community as defined by the applicant.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application does
not satisfy either of the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for longevity.
Criterion #2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community
2-A Nexus

0/4 Point(s)0/3 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for
Nexus as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook.
The string identifies the community, but over-reaches substantially beyond the community. The application
received a score of 0 out of 3 points under criterion 2-A: Nexus.
To receive the maximum score for Nexus, the applied-for string must match the name of the community or
be a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community name. To receive a partial score for Nexus,
the applied-for string must identify the community. “Identify” means that the applied-for string shouldclosely describe the community or the community members, without over-reaching substantially beyond thecommunity.
The applied-for string (.LLC) over-reaches substantially, as the string indicates a wider or related communityof which the applicant is a part but is not specific to the applicant’s community. According to the application
documentation:“.LLC” was chosen as our gTLD string because it is the commonly used abbreviation for the entity
type that makes up the membership of our community. In the English language Limited Liability
Company is primarily shortened to LLC when used to delineate business entity types. Since all of ourcommunity members are limited liability companies we believed that “.LLC” would be the simplest,
most straight forward way to accurately represent our community.
LLC is a recognized abbreviation in all 50 states and US territories denoting the registration type of abusiness entity. The Panel’s research indicates that while other jurisdictions use LLC as a corporate
identifier, their definitions are quite different and there are no other known associations ordefinitions of LLC in the English language.
While the string identifies the name of the community, it captures a wider geographical remit than the

Page!4!

!
community has, as the corporate identifier is used in other jurisdictions (outside the US). Therefore, there is a
substantial over-reach between the proposed string and community as defined by the applicant.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the applied-for string over-reaches substantiallybeyond the community. It therefore does not meet the requirements for Nexus.
2-B Uniqueness

0/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for
Uniqueness as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant
Guidebook as the string does not score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus. The application received a score of 0 out of 1
point under criterion 2-B: Uniqueness.
To fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness, the string must have no other significant meaning beyond
identifying the community described in the application and it must also score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus. The string
as defined in the application does not demonstrate uniqueness as the string does not score a 2 or a 3 on
Nexus and is therefore ineligible for a score of 1 for Uniqueness. The Community Priority Evaluation panel
determined that the applied-for string does not satisfy the condition to fulfill the requirements for
Uniqueness.

Criterion #3: Registration Policies
3-A Eligibility

3/4 Point(s)1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Eligibility as
specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook as eligibility
is restricted to community members. The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3A: Eligibility.
To fulfill the requirements for Eligibility, the registration policies must restrict the eligibility of prospective
registrants to community members. The application demonstrates adherence to this requirement by limiting
eligibility to registered limited liability companies and by cross-referencing their documentation against theapplicable US state’s registration records in order to verify the accuracy of their application. (Comprehensive
details are provided in Section 20e of the applicant documentation). The Community Priority Evaluation
panel determined that the application satisfies the condition to fulfill the requirements for Eligibility.
3-B Name Selection

1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Name
Selection as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook
as name selection rules are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for TLD.
The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-B: Name Selection.
To fulfill the requirements for Name Selection, the registration policies for name selection for registrants
must be consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. The application
demonstrates adherence to this requirement by outlining a comprehensive list of name selection rules, suchas requirements that second level domain names should match or include a substantial part of the registrant’slegal name, and specifying that registrants will not be able to register product line registrations, amongst otherrequirements. (Comprehensive details are provided in Section 20e of the applicant documentation). The
Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application satisfies the condition to fulfill therequirements for Name Selection.
3-C Content and Use

1/1 Point(s)Page!5!

!
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Content and
Use as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook as therules for content and use are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for
TLD. The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-C: Content and Use.
To fulfill the requirements for Content and Use, the registration policies must include rules for content anduse for registrants that are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for
gTLD. The application demonstrates adherence to this requirement by noting that all registrants must adhere
to the content restrictions outlined in the applicant’s abuse policies. (Comprehensive details are provided in
Section 20e of the applicant documentation). The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that theapplication satisfies the condition to fulfill the requirements for Content and Use.
3-D Enforcement

0/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for
Enforcement as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant
Guidebook as the application provided specific enforcement measures but did not include appropriate appeal
mechanisms. The application received a score of 0 out of 1 point under criterion 3-D: Enforcement.
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement: the registration policies must
include specific enforcement measures constituting a coherent set, and there must be appropriate appeals
mechanisms. The applicant outlined policies that include specific enforcement measures constituting a
coherent set. For example, if a registrant wrongfully applied for and was awarded a second level domain
name, the right to hold this domain name will be immediately forfeited. (Comprehensive details are provided
in Section 20e of the applicant documentation). However, the application did not outline an appeals process.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application satisfies only one of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement.

Criterion #4: Community Endorsement
4-A Support

2/4 Point(s)1/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application partially met the criterion for
Support specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook as
there was documented support from at least one group with relevance. The application received a score of 1out of 2 points under criterion 4-A: Support.
To receive the maximum score for Support, the applicant is, or has documented support from, therecognized community institution(s)/member organization(s), or has otherwise documented authority torepresent the community. “Recognized” means the institution(s)/organization(s) that, through membershipor otherwise, are clearly recognized by the community members as representative of the community. To
receive a partial score for Support, the applicant must have documented support from at least one group with
relevance. “Relevance” refers to the communities explicitly and implicitly addressed.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the applicant was not the recognized community
institution(s)/member organization(s), nor did it have documented authority to represent the community, or
documented support from a majority of the recognized community institution(s)/member organization(s).
However, the applicant possesses documented support from at least one group with relevance and thisdocumentation contained a description of the process and rationale used in arriving at the expression of
support.
The application included letters from a number of Secretaries of State of US states, which were considered to

Page!6!

!
constitute support from groups with relevance, as each Secretary of State has responsibility for corporate
registrations and the regulations pertaining to corporate formation in its jurisdiction. These entities are not
the recognized community institution(s)/member organization(s), as these government agencies are fulfillinga function, rather than representing the community. The viewpoints expressed in these letters were notconsistent across states. While several US states expressed clear support for the applicant during the Lettersof Support verification process, others either provided qualified support, refrained from endorsing one
particular applicant over another, or did not respond to the verification request. Letters of support fromother entities did not meet the requirement for relevance based on the Applicant Guidebook criteria, as they
were not from the recognized community institutions/member organizations. The Community Priority
Evaluation Panel determined that the applicant partially satisfies the requirements for Support.
4-B Opposition

1/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application partially met the criterion for
Opposition specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook,as the application received relevant opposition from one group of non-negligible size. The application
received a score of 1 out of 2 points under criterion 4-B: Opposition.
To receive the maximum score for Opposition, the application must not have received any opposition of
relevance. To receive a partial score for Opposition, the application must have received opposition from, at
most, one group of non-negligible size.
The application received several letters of opposition, one of which was determined to be relevant opposition
from an organization of non-negligible size. This opposition was from a community that was not identified
in the application but which has an association to the applied-for string. Opposition was on the grounds that
limiting registration to US registered corporations only would unfairly exclude non-US businesses. The
remaining letters were either from groups/individuals of negligible size, or were not from communities
which were not mentioned in the application but which have an association to the applied for string. The
Community Priority Evaluation Panel determined that the applicant partially satisfied the requirements for
Opposition.
Disclaimer: Please note that these Community Priority Evaluation results do not necessarily determine thefinal result of the application. In limited cases the results might be subject to change. These results do notconstitute a waiver or amendment of any provision of the Applicant Guidebook or the Registry Agreement.
For updated application status and complete details on the program, please refer to the Applicant Guidebook
and the ICANN New gTLDs microsite at <newgtlds.icann.org>.

Page!7!